Varick Planning Board March 22, 2018

Varick Planning Board

March 22, 2018

Present: Hershey Sensenig, Frankie Long, Rich Olsen, Thomas Björkman, Linda Mastellar

Absent: David Kidd, one vacancy

Call to order at 7:03

Minutes approved: Moved by Sensenig, Second by Olsen.  All in favor.

Linda contacted Code Enforcement Officer Tim Dorn, to ask him to attend this meeting but did not hear back.

The ZBA was in touch regarding dock legislation progress, introduced by Helming, but not acted on yet.

Trash. Supervisor Hayssen and ZBA chair Bachman asked us to revisit the trash language in our code to see that it is as strong and restrictive as we intend.

To do so we need to have unambiguous definitions of trash and things that are similar to trash so that the regulations have the appropriate restrictions on each category.

We discussed things that the language should address, and uses the likely would be allowed, limited or prohibited.

·      We thought our language was clear that trash cannot be stored, transloaded or disposed of in town. But some find the provisos for used non-waste to be ambiguous.

·      Local ag waste as part of agricultural operation is OK.

·      Food-processing waste may be processed for reuse.

·      The municipality should be exempt for transloading trash on ten days a year to allow for semi-annual cleanup days at the town barn.

·      Specify that restrictions applies to commercial use.

·      Distinguish between accepting waste material vs generating it. Latter is bound to happen, former is a problem.

·      Avoid having a loophole that lets someone store waste by calling it something else, e.g recyclable or marketable.

·      Processing locally generated waste to make a marketable product (and sell it). Some things ok, others not. What would be community expectation a of e.g. a new large-scale industrial processor of ag waste?

·      DEC considers composting and anaerobic digestion to be recycling (ECL27-106), but we don’t want big facilities dedicated to those purposes.

·      Any marketable materials need to be sold quickly, not accumulate.

We should be consistent about using the term “Garbage, trash and refuse” and have a very specific definition.
We should define “marketable recyclable materials,” which is a term used in the code now.

Definition:

Garbage, trash and refuse.

1.     Municipal solid waste

2.     Industrial waste (including process water and leachate)

3.     Any material intended to be disposed as waste

4.     Any material abandoned without a clear plan for reuse or recycling within a month.

What we consider borderline areas to be resolved: Some material that started as waste can have value recovered. Many such operations would be undesirable, but some process may be ok (e.g. pallet remanufacturing). Transloading of certain materials destined for recycling or reuse may be OK, but storage and processing would not (e.g. tires). See: Materials Exchanges under DEC rules for an example. Major criteria: toxicity, odor, risk of environmental contamination, visual blight.  

We will send our ideas to the Town Board by next Tuesday for review at their April meeting. We will use their input to refine code language at our April meeting. We’ll send the proposed language for their May meeting. They may have a public hearing and adoption then or in June.

When does the code language need to be made public relative to the public hearing?

Adjourn: Moved by Sensenig, Second by Long. Approved 5-0 8:44 pm

-->